Emergency Mindset(s)

About the only 'good' thing associated with having recent/multiple
sailplane-based fatalities involving premature releases from tow *might* be
that it tends to: 1) focus one's thought process(es), and 2) might also
*possibly* serve as a mental door opener to 'learning something new,' or
'opening one's mind,' or 'changing thought-processes (and by implication,
behavior) for the better/safer.' (In a nutshell, the latter is what learning
to fly a sailplane is all about...)

Some cogent points have been expressed in the "tow rope brake (sic) practice
crash, what can we learn..." thread, including:
- the 'Rule of primacy' in the learning process is real;
- radios can be a useful (if imperfect) tool;
- signal standardization is almost certainly a good thing;
- improved training deserves to be 'worked' before we abandon the rudder
wig-wag signal;
- tunnel-vision/-mentality is 'humanly natural' in moments of stress;
- humans screw up/perfection is not an option.

FWIW, early-on in my soaring career I concluded it made sense to/for me to
think about certain, immediately life-threatening flight scenarios in certain
ways explicitly intended and designed to 'keep my emergency reactions' on a
logically rational basis. I had NO illusions about my ability to 'think
clearly' when under stress. Stated another way, I had/have zero doubt I get
considerably stupider when under stress.

It quickly became obvious to me that being 'too stupid' when acting as Joe
Pilot could easily kill me.

Soaring is real safe, as long as you don't hit anything, and launching and
landing are the two times every practitioner WILL be unavoidably close to
something big, hard and capable of killing you. (For you 'skimmer' readers out
there, I'm referring to the earth in the preceding sentence. Duh!)

Earth corollary: If earth contact is unavoidable, *hit it horizontally!!!*;
vertical hits are near-guaranteed death sentences to Joe Pilot.

Pretty simple, really...and no amount of rationalization, hand-waving,
impassioned appeals to the frailty of human nature, etc., will change any of
the physical realities involved.

Equally simple is concluding *ONLY* two scenarios are unavoidably *and*
imminently life-threateningly-crucial to the continuance of human existence,
insofar as Joe Sailplane Pilot is concerned:
1) the 'passage' (hidden assumption: aerotow) through 'Never-Never-land'
surrounding many (most?) gliderports, which is to say airports surrounded by
mature trees/forests/swamps/houses/communities/killer
sagebrush/arroyos/vertical rocks/etc.;
2) 'the dreaded' inadvertent stall/spin (departure from controlled flight) on
the base-to-final turn.

Launch item 1) has very real potential to suddenly become stress-inducing
(premature release, anyone?), while landing item 2) is a self-induced death
sentence.

Reiterating, that's IT, folks! Every other glider-pilot-based (i.e.
'non-fate-based') scenario I can imagine involving immediate risk to life and
limb also involves factors under Joe Pilot's immediate control. Except for the
'necessity' of launching and - once launched - the inevitability of landing,
essentially all of the deadly risks involved with soaring are completely under
Joe Pilot's control.

No one ever forced me to go to oxygen-requiring heights; no one ever forced me
to fly near/along a ridge; no one ever forced me to fly at speeds near
redline; no one ever forced me to thermal with others; no one ever forced me
to pull up from high speed without clearing myself to the best of my ability;
no one ever forced me to do a worm-burning high speed pass; no one ever forced
me to remain aloft as weather deteriorated and convection began to run
rampant; no one ever forced me to pilot a glider I had not verified 100% of
the controls were connected.

Did others interrupt me at critical times? Only just about ever time I've
rigged. The lesson there seems immediately obvious, if J. Pilot believes
him/herself in control of their personal destiny. (If they don't they should
find some other hobby than piloting, IMHO.)

Hence, early on I put active, focused thought into deciding how I could
minimize my chances of dying from any situation reasonably-imaginably
presented me by the 2 scenarios beyond my direct control (given that my
*intention* was very definitely to go soaring!).

My Launch Conclusions:
1) Don't do anything which arguably worsens the existing situation. (Why risk
shooting myself in the foot?)
2) Think! (That means give myself the time/opportunity to allow my
stress-dumbed brain to begin function in some semi-logical manner. IMO 'pure
reactions' considerably increase one's risk of being 'IQ dumb,' incorrectly
hasty, and 'situationally worsening.')

My Landing Conclusions:
1) 'Always' and 'every time' have the thought actively in mind that if I don't
do *every*thing correctly, I could (easily, and soon) be permanently dead.
(Someone once noted that nothing so focuses the mind as the thought of known
and impending death!)
2) 'Don't *do* that!!!' when considering the dreaded stall/spin while turning
final. (I didn't have to look far to find examples of pilots far more
experienced than I then was, some of whom were 'paper heroes' of mine, who
died from this particular scenario. If really good pilots could kill
themselves, certainly so could I.)

Neither the launching nor landing conclusions above are rocket science, any
more than not playing on the freeway is rocket science. We laugh about 'the
freeway admonition' for all the obvious reasons, but way too many of us
sailplane pilots 'somehow or other' place the obviousness of 'the
launching/landing situations' in a different mental category. Why, when the
mortal results are similar?

Anyhow, the above fundamental and simple thought processes have worked for me
for over 30 years...and periodic re-examination of them has never revealed a
reason to find them wanting in any substantive manner. Meanwhile, I've many
times read, (and occasionally watched) others *fail* to implement similarly
focused thinking. I've also had numerous (exceeding 20?/30?/50?) conversations
with glider types who have survived various takeoff/landing-pattern
'situations' that easily could have killed them, who (in my view) had made
various contributory mistakes. Big surprise here (not!) - the scariest of
these conversations involved pilots whose thought processes invoked any manner
of tortured thinking, (evidently) designed to ignore/displace the unavoidable
physical realities of launching and landing sailplanes. What an eye opening
insight into human nature some of those conversations were! Perhaps they
contributed to the decision to never pursue a CFI-G rating.

In any event, how a person thinks about very real and unavoidable risks,
matters!!! Every pilot hoping to maximize their chances of dying peacefully in
bed of old age owes it to themselves (and their spouses, families and friends)
to not deny, deflect or otherwise obfuscate the physical realities (and
unavoidable risks) associated with taking off and landing sailplanes.

Having so focused their minds, the next step is to actively decide what
personal methodology is likely to work best to help them (i.e. individual J.
Pilot) minimize the risks. (Stated another way, how Joe Individual Pilot
chooses to cope with the unavoidable launching/landing risks is the *method*
of skinning the cat. I don't pretend to have identified the one human
condition happening to have ONLY one 'best method' of cat-skinning.)

That noted, I encourage anyone who seriously invokes as an exculpatory thought
process: resignation, inevitability, human imperfection, (here insert your
favorite rationale), to share them with the group...but ONLY if they also
share why they believe their approach is better/safer than an approach focused
unblinkingly on the unavoidability of the afore-mentioned takeoff and landing
risks. (Opinion without the reasoning behind it will be cheerfully ignored.)

Bob - remembers friends who 'stupidly/unnecessarily' died in sailplanes - W.

Some time ago, Tom Knauff issued a list of things that could go wrong
with an aerotow launch. He pointed out that most could be avoided by
somebody outside the glider noticing and drawing the attention of the
pilot etc. to the issue.

Checking that the spoilers are closed (Airbrakes in UK terminology,
for most gliders) is on the list.

It might help some people to look and check a bit better, so here is
the list. Feel free to let me know of anything else that might be
added to it.


I have added a few items to Tom’s list, including things specific to
car or winch launching. I hope Tom does not mind me publishing the
consolidated list here.

Items 1-41 are cribbed from From Thomas Knauff, well-known USA gliding
instructor and safety specialist


TAKEOFF EMERGENCIES

1. Rope Break.

2. Canopy not latched.

3. A control not connected.

4. Wing drop (groundloop).

5. Air brakes opening.

6. Flaps in wrong position.

7. Tow plane power failure.

8. Tow speed too slow or fast.

9. Being towed too far downwind.

10.Controls hooked up backwards.

11. Tire blow out.

12. Tow rope will not release.

13. Glider becomes too high.

14. Someone moves onto runway.

15. Tow rope catches on something at beginning of launch.

16. Slack rope / rope wrapping around glider.

17. Improperly installed component.

18. PIO.

19. Frozen controls.

20. Turbulence.

21. IMC

22. Inability to recover from low tow position.

23. Knot in rope.

24. Over running the tow rope.

25. Traffic conflict / mid-air collision.

26. Wing runner error.

27. Airspeed indicator not working.

28. Altimeter not adjusted properly.

29. Tail chute opens.

30. Water ballast disconnects and spills into cockpit.

31. Snake / Bee / Wasp in cockpit.

32. Unbalanced ballast in wings.

33. Seat belts undone.

34. Pitot / Static ports clogged.

35. Smoke in cockpit.

36. Panicky passenger.

37. Pillows / seat ballast moves

38. Controls restricted (control locks, rudder pedals too far
forward.)

39. Tail dolly on.

40. Canopy fogs up.

41. CG out of limits - maybe due to water or ice collected in the tail

42. Wing dolly on

Also:


Wing drop during take-off run.

Hazards within area that glider might swing into.

Confusion about which pilot is flying.

Trusting a friend who is “pilot flying”.

Over-reliance upon somebody else’s judgements/decisions/advice.


----------------------------


Chris N

On Jul 24, 6:09*am, BobW wrote:
1) the 'passage' (hidden assumption: aerotow) through 'Never-Never-land'
surrounding many (most?) gliderports, which is to say airports surrounded by
mature trees/forests/swamps/houses/communities/killer
sagebrush/arroyos/vertical rocks/etc.;

I've only flown gliders from about twenty airfields/farm strips in New
Zealand and the USA but I can not think of ANY OF THEM that had such a
never-never-land, and I would not be comfortable flying from one.

In every case there has been either:

1) landable areas beyond the fence, or
2) by the time you get near the fence you're high and fast enough to
turn 90º to a crosswind landing or turn 180º to a downwind.

Once past the fence, it has always been the case that either the tug
climbs well enough that you can fly straight out and gliding back only
ever gets easier, OR the tug orbits close to the field until you're at
500ft or so.

Typical tows at most places are about 600 fpm at 65 - 70 knots in a
two seater. That's around 11:1 or 12:1. The lowest performance gliders
I've ever flown do around 28:1 (Blanik, K7, K13), and most gliders are
either more like 40:1 or climb a lot faster, or both.

Thus, in my experience, it is the case that a straight out tow allows
the glider to return to the field at any point. A wind only makes that
easier.

How do you guys get a never-never-land? I can see it could happen if,
say, you had a glider that only does 20:1 and a tug that climbs less
than 300 fpm but ... gah! ... you don't have to do that!

At my home field things did start to get a bit dodgy at one point due
to fields turning into houses and a switch from light Blaniks to heavy
Twin Astirs. We solved that by selling the Cubs and buying Pawnees.

If you're flying from somewhere with a never-never-land then I very
strongly suggest that you do something about it. Get more length, cut
down obstacles, get a more powerful tug, or better performing gliders.

On Jul 23, 7:37*pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:09*am, BobW wrote:

1) the 'passage' (hidden assumption: aerotow) through 'Never-Never-land'
surrounding many (most?) gliderports, which is to say airports surrounded by
mature trees/forests/swamps/houses/communities/killer
sagebrush/arroyos/vertical rocks/etc.;

I've only flown gliders from about twenty airfields/farm strips in New
Zealand and the USA but I can not think of ANY OF THEM that had such a
never-never-land, and I would not be comfortable flying from one.

In every case there has been either:

1) landable areas beyond the fence, or
2) by the time you get near the fence you're high and fast enough to
turn 90º to a crosswind landing or turn 180º to a downwind.

Once past the fence, it has always been the case that either the tug
climbs well enough that you can fly straight out and gliding back only
ever gets easier, OR the tug orbits close to the field until you're at
500ft or so.

Typical tows at most places are about 600 fpm at 65 - 70 knots in a
two seater. That's around 11:1 or 12:1. The lowest performance gliders
I've ever flown do around 28:1 (Blanik, K7, K13), and most gliders are
either more like 40:1 or climb a lot faster, or both.

Thus, in my experience, it is the case that a straight out tow allows
the glider to return to the field at any point. A wind only makes that
easier.

How do you guys get a never-never-land? I can see it could happen if,
say, you had a glider that only does 20:1 and a tug that climbs less
than 300 fpm but ... gah! ... you don't have to do that!

At my home field things did start to get a bit dodgy at one point due
to fields turning into houses and a switch from light Blaniks to heavy
Twin Astirs. We solved that by selling the Cubs and buying Pawnees.

If you're flying from somewhere with a never-never-land then I very
strongly suggest that you do something about it. Get more length, cut
down obstacles, get a more powerful tug, or better performing gliders.

Try adding 5,000' or more density altitude to your experiences for a
start and you may find yourself operating in a different regime. Even
with the most powerful Pawnee available. Certainly easy to be towed
out of comfortable glide range...

Darryl

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:37:14 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

How do you guys get a never-never-land? I can see it could happen if,
say, you had a glider that only does 20:1 and a tug that climbs less
than 300 fpm but ... gah! ... you don't have to do that!

Boulder, CO is fairly scary for a low break - for starters its at 5000 ft
before you add in density altitude, so even a 235hp Pawnee on a two blader
doesn't climb all that fast, and its pretty much bear country off either
end of the runway (40° 2.393'N, 105° 13.794'W if you want to take a
look). The west end of the run has a lake and then houses while the east
end has an escarpment that drops down to small fields, roads etc. I was
briefed that the best way out was a 45 degree left turn and land in the
big field on top of the bluff.

And yes, they have 2-33s there, with their nominal 23:1 glide ratio,
though I flew a Grob Acro when I was there.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jul 23, 7:37*pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:


I've only flown gliders from about twenty airfields/farm strips in New
Zealand and the USA but I can not think of ANY OF THEM that had such a
never-never-land, and I would not be comfortable flying from one.


Who said anything about being comfortable? 5000ft plus density
altitude, 5 kt tail wind, a full load of water, and then find sinking
air on the climb out. Certainly not comfortable but not uncommon at
contests in Western US.

Andy

On 7/23/2011 8:37 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:09 am, wrote:
1) the 'passage' (hidden assumption: aerotow) through 'Never-Never-land'
surrounding many (most?) gliderports, which is to say airports surrounded by
mature trees/forests/swamps/houses/communities/killer
sagebrush/arroyos/vertical rocks/etc.;

I've only flown gliders from about twenty airfields/farm strips in New
Zealand and the USA but I can not think of ANY OF THEM that had such a
never-never-land, and I would not be comfortable flying from one.

No disrespect intended, but I'd reply from several perspectives...
1) Consider yourself a lucky gliderpilot in your choices of airports. (One of
these days maybe I'll make a list of those I've towed from and give 'em a
ranking on my personal 'never, never land' list; my off-the-cuff guess is
those having essentially zero risk-to-the-plane-free departure scenarios would
be *easily* over 50%. Take - for instance - Boulder (CO) my home field. Taking
off to the east, it has one (maybe two, depending...) landable fields, one
90-degrees to the runway heading; both have been used over the years. Taking
off to the west (done only in [definitionally, really gnarly being in the
immediate lee of the continental divide mountains] high-wind conditions), the
runway ends at a large pond/small lake, beyond which is an open field bordered
by trees on the approach, wires and trees on the far end, and littered with
(large) prairie dog hole mounds. I consider the west departure a 'never, never
land' departure, even though I'm aware of one 2-32 that successfully dumped
into the field without 'real damage' (minor bent metal adjoining the skid as I
recall). It was pure chance it escaped with that minor of damage.)
2) Is it more conservative to generalize entirely from one's own
(definitionally limited) perspectives, or, from a perspective incorporating
others' experiences? (Being a conservative kind of thinker when it comes to my
own hide, I'd argue an incorporative perspective is the more prudent. If it
happens, it must be possible. If other glider pilots claim 'never, never land'
exists, while it's *possible* they may all be cowardly, lying wusses, it's
also possible some of them may NOT be. Hmmm...)
3) To your comment of, "...and I would not be comfortable flying from one" I'd
hope 100% of all prudent, informed glider pilots (i.e. all of us, youbetcha!)
would feel similarly!!! I certainly never have been troubled by a complacent
attitude on takeoff; maybe it's one reason I've focused so much over the years
on being paranoid about the very real possibilities of a premature
release...and by extension, the need for non-foot-shotting piloting actions in
their immediate wake. Mindset matters!

Snip...

How do you guys get a never-never-land?

Geographical luck? If it happens, it must be possible.

Snip...


If you're flying from somewhere with a never-never-land then I very
strongly suggest that you do something about it.

We're in 100% agreement (up to here!). I choose 'safety paranoia' tempered
with a larger sense of 'daily go/no-go' thinking...which naturally varies. My
go/no-go decision depends on my assessment of 'the whole shebang': the ship
I'm to fly; my currency; the immediate field conditions (ground and air);
'never, never land'; the tug/pilot combination; etc.; etc.; etc.

Get more length, cut
down obstacles, get a more powerful tug, or better performing gliders.

(Gentle, non-condescending, smile...) Our primary tug is a 250 (260?) hp
Pawnee w. 4-blade prop. Can you suggest something better? (It might be best to
begin another thread here!) As to obstacles, every time we propose blading 'em
away, the obstacle owners (and their political friends) get in an uproar; I
don't know why. To get more eastern runway length we'd have to fill the 'toe'
of an alluvial fan of ~100-150' vertical feet. To the west we'd have to fill
that pesky lake and move/kill some prairie dogs; on the western end, it's
arguable which is the largest issue (dry chuckle). The Club glider fleet:
Schweizer 1-34; G-102; G-103; Schweizer 2-32; DG-505. Recognizing that it's
always possible I'm missing something fundamental here, it certainly isn't
obvious to me how this particular (large, relatively healthy) club could
implement any of your suggestions, and remain a large, relatively healthy club.
- - - - - -

But to restate my main point again (just so it doesn't get entirely lost, 'too
soon'), the issue I'm hoping to nudge people to consider (perhaps more
seriously than they heretofore have done so) is that of Joe Glider-PIC's
mindset prior to each and every launch and each and every landing. Both
situations are the times JGPIC is most likely to die, while PIC-ing. (That's
per NTSB data, which happens also to match 'common sense' in this instance.)

Would you rather take off primed and ready for a real launch emergency, or
even a foot-shot 'situation'...or not? Why?

Would you rather fly your landing pattern without having recently
pre-considered the possibility you *could* depart from controlled flight...or
not? Why?

To me, it simply is prudent to have these situations actively in mind in both
circumstances. Why?

Launching - I'd argue that if we could interview (say) the last 10 sailplane
pilots who botched an on-tow visual "Check your sailplane, doofus!" signal,
we'd find pretty much unanimous agreement they 'could have done better'
preparing for that particular tow. (*I* certainly wouldn't be arguing the
position there was no WAY I could have done things better prior to botching
such a signal.)

Landing - Similarly, (hidden assumption - we rule out the possibility of
intentional suicides) if we could somehow interview the last 10 sailplane
pilots who died after an unintentional departure from controlled flight in the
landing pattern, I'm reasonably certain every one would choose to have a
second chance at the fatal pattern...and that most would do 'something'
differently.

Regards,
Bob W.